May 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 45

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before introducing our routine proceedings, I would like to

bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the public galleries

today of twenty-five students from Brinton Memorial School here in St. John's.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Ruth Dawe and Judy Laurentius. I am also

informed that the Minister of Mines and Energy has a son in that particular

class.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my original question is for the

Minister of Mines and Energy, but since his son is in the gallery I won't ask it

today. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands, who,

unfortunately, is absent, so I will put the question to the acting minister, the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, who has answered questions, I presume.

This morning there had been reports, as the minister probably

knows, that fishermen in the Long Harbour area have been catching herring with a

reddish colour, red herring, or whatever they wish to call them, from waters

around the phosphorus plant. Now, that plant has been closed for two years, I

guess. I would like to ask the minister if he has any information from the

environment people to indicate if effluence from that plant is somehow escaping

into the bay and again polluting the waters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this point in

time have any information to that effect. I will, in a sense, take the question

under advisement and see that the Minister of Environment and Lands is made

aware of the concern and provides an answer immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I asked the wrong

minister. Maybe somebody over there would be aware of it, the Minister of

Fisheries, I don't know. I would like to have an answer to the question because

it seems to be a very important matter. Can anybody give me an answer to the

question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: I heard the reports, as did the hon.

gentleman opposite, and I am having it checked out to find out exactly what

happened. I recall very well the red herring fiasco that developed some years

back. In fact, I was quite alarmed this morning when I heard that there appears

to be a repeat performance about to happen, but it is being checked out by my

officials.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad nobody really knows

what is going on over there. I would have thought somebody would have had a

report on that. Let me ask the acting Minister of Environment and Lands this

question. The Premier, I believe, in the House in the last week or two, or

whatever it was, said it might take up to twenty years to clean up that Long

Harbour site. I ask the acting Minister of Environment and Lands, what has the

Department of Environment and Lands been doing to monitor the levels of

pollution left at that site, and have the officials in the Department of

Environment expressed concerns that any of the measures taken to contain the

pollutants, might somehow break down and spread pollution into the surrounding

waters? Have there been any concerns expressed by officials of the Department of

Environment and Lands?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: As the hon. member would well know, in the

capacity of acting minister, I don't have day-to-day meetings or day-to-day

briefings from the officials of the Department of Environment and Lands, however

I will undertake to get detailed answers to the hon. member's questions. As a

matter of fact, after Question Period is over, I will undertake to contact the

officials or contact the minister, but no, I cannot at this point in time give

detailed answers to what are obviously detailed questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is almost useless to try, but

I guess I will try one more. I presume that the acting minister would have had a

briefing if the minister is not here, presumably he would be the acting

minister. Let me ask him this: The Minister of Environment and Lands said some

days ago that she was very pleased with the effort made by Albright and Wilson

to clean up the Long Harbour site, and in response to questions asked by my

colleague from Torngat Mountains, she, in fact, referred to the whole issue as a

'Tempest in a Teapot'.

Now, in view of this particular information that is coming

forth today, and in view of the alarming number of reports that we are receiving

on this side of the House - maybe members on that side can speak for themselves

- as to the actual site, that site is a gigantic mess. I would like to ask the

minister, in his capacity as acting minister, on some occasion getting a

briefing, I presume, from environment people as an acting minister, is he

concerned at all with the clean up process that is taking place, what action is

the government taking to speed it up and make sure it is done properly and

correctly, and is the department still pleased with the efforts being made to

clean up the site? I guess that is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that every minister

in this government and, for that matter, every member of the government side of

the House is concerned about environmental issues in this Province. It is a very

complex - and he well knows, Mr. Speaker, because he was there, he knows what

happened at Long Harbour and it is a very complex issue. The clean-up, itself,

will be very complex, never undertaken probably anywhere in the world, a

clean-up of that magnitude, and if the minister indicated that she was pleased

with the progress being made or pleased with what is happening, then I accept

the minister's word for that and I can tell the hon. member that the minister

might well be here present herself in the next few minutes, but certainly

tomorrow. I undertake to make sure the minister is aware of the member's concern

and comes in prepared to deal with the questions as asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier.

The Premier, on May 7, in response to the question from the

Member for Humber Valley regarding the assistance that could be made available

to the Lundrigan group of companies, made a statement, and I quote the Premier

from Hansard for May 7: "So I can assure the House, and assure the people of the

Province, that the government will make every possible effort that it can

properly make to aid in finding an acceptable resolution of this problem that

will protect the interests of the employees, protect the interests of other

creditors who will be affected if the bank gets its money and the other

creditors are adversely affected, and also to protect the interests of a great

family of entrepreneurs..."

Mr. Speaker, that is a quote from May 7th. I wonder if the

Premier can update the House on what has occurred so far and what has been done

by the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there have been a significant

number of discussions, some in Corner Brook and some here with the senior

executive officers of the Lundrigan organization. I have had a number of calls

and petitions from representatives of the unions. We have indicated publicly and

have reaffirmed for them that the government cannot get involved with providing

financial support for essentially commercially competitive business enterprises,

but there are certain aspects of the Lundrigan organization that don't quite

fall into that category, and in respect of which is a major public interest in

the Province - the Atlantic gypsum facility, for example, the prestress concrete

construction facility which is the only capability in the Province.

There is also the fact that the Lundrigan organization is one

of very few heavy industrial construction companies in this Province, and it is

not in the public interest to lose that capability and diminish the competitive

capability that will remain. It is very much in the public interest to try to

ensure that is done and, in the meantime, it is in the public interest also to

try to avoid job disruption, if we can do it reasonably, and try to avoid

adverse impact on other creditors beyond their capability to withstand it.

So we have indicated to the Lundrigan organization after

discussions that we are prepared to consider any proposal that they could put

forward that would meet those concerns, that would provide for some means of

addressing our concern with respect to maintaining the Atlantic gypsum

operation, the prestress concrete and general concrete production capability and

the heavy industrial capability that didn't involve financing such commercially

competitive enterprises as City Motors, for example, which has competitors all

over the Province; Avis Rent A Car, which has competitors all over the Province;

Atlantic Building Materials, which has competitors all over the Province. So

those discussions have gone on, and we have established a committee of Cabinet

consisting of the Minister of Development, the Minister of Finance and the

Minister of Justice, to look at how this might be done. All of this is in

progress right at this time, as I speak. They have developed a proposal, or put

a suggestion forward, and we will have to take a look at it and examine whether

or not it meets with the criteria that government has indicated, and that is

what this committee will be doing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I have a question for the Premier. Why has the

Premier not appointed a judicial inquiry to probe the police mishandling of the

Kelland investigation, in view of the following facts: Number one, it took the

Constabulary twenty-one months to conduct the investigation. Number two,

fourteen months after the complaint alleging sexual assault was made to the

Constabulary, a member of the force, the originating officer, admitted to the

complainant, in the presence of the Leader of the NDP, that the Constabulary had

accidentally shelved the file and done nothing with it for more than a year.

Number three, the Minister of Justice, for the last three months of the

investigation, has been in a conflict of interest situation; and number four,

the Premier's answers to my questions about his knowledge of the investigation

were not very believable.

Why has the Premier not ordered a judicial inquiry in view of

all those facts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, two things would likely cause

a judicial inquiry to take place. One is some credible evidence that there was

something incorrect, or something untoward, or something improper about the

police investigation or the handling of it by any justice official, or any

official on this side of the House. That would clearly warrant an investigation,

if there was one shred of credible evidence other than the political

grandstanding of members opposite.

Now the second thing that could cause an investigation to be

made is if that political grandstanding got so out of hand that it genuinely

caused concern in the Province - it genuinely caused concern about the

administration of justice. Even though it was totally unfounded - there was

nothing there on which it could be founded - but if this kind of screaming day

after day for political reasons really created any lack of confidence in the

administration of justice, then that too would necessitate a judicial enquiry.

If that in fact happens I can assure the House - if the

confidence in the administration of justice is undermined either by one shred of

competent evidence to demonstrate any improper activity by anybody, or any

failure to act properly by anybody, then, Mr. Speaker, we would cause a judicial

inquiry to take place. We may be forced into doing it if, for their political

reasons, the members opposite keep trying to undermine, unjustifiably, the

confidence. They may force the Province to go to the expense also of having a

judicial inquiry in order to restore it. In either case, if it becomes necessary

I can assure the House the government will act.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the Premier

rationalise having set up judicial inquiries twice into allegations against the

Member for Port de Grave, and having set up a judicial inquiry into allegations

about Sprung - the final report of which, incidentally, the Premier still has

not released - when he is refusing, or at least dragging his heels, on having a

judicial inquiry into much more compelling allegations about police mishandling

of an allegation of sexual assault made against one of his former Cabinet

ministers, when his Minister of Justice for the last three months has been in a

conflict of interest position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Seldom you hear such utter tripe and so

much of it in one day. Mr. Speaker, the compelling reasons that the hon. member

speaks about came from her. Nobody else. But came from her. She says it is

either one of two things. Either there was a total failure on the part of the

police, or there was improper interference politically with it. In the face of

that, in a cowardly way, she puts the words in the mouth of this complainant.

Doesn't acknowledge that she is speaking. She puts the words in the mouth of

this complainant and says: that she is forced to believe that there was

political interference.

Well, there is another, third possibility, that the member

very conveniently covers up. That is, simply, the fact that there is no

foundation whatsoever to those allegations.

Now I say again to any member who wants to raise it, bring me

one shred of credible evidence that there was any failure on the part of the

police or failure on the part of anybody or interference on the part of anybody

in this government and, Mr. Speaker, we will be most anxious to cause a judicial

inquiry to be held.

Now, in the other circumstances to which the hon. member

refers, there was quite proper basis for putting forward the inquiry because the

direct action and behaviour of a Minister of the Crown was directly involved.

Bring me one single shred of evidence that any minister of the Crown had any

direct involvement and this government will act. But I am not going to go about

and create judicial inquiries and burden this Province with tremendous expense

unnecessarily simply to satisfy the political cravings of the members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why should anyone bring any evidence to the Premier when the

Premier has a vested interest in the outcome of any investigation? Why won't the

Premier appoint an independent judge to conduct an investigation and then let

anyone with evidence bring it to the judge? Why won't the Premier appoint an

independent inquiry? Is the Premier afraid of what might be found, perhaps about

himself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Don't bring it to me, lay it on the Table

of the House. If you have one single thing, lay it on the Table of the House and

then we will act. Put it there and we will act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What's the Premier afraid of?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. But the

government is not going to be goaded into wasting taxpayers' money because some

member of the Opposition has this fixation or deliberately wants to create some

kind of a suggestion that there is some improper action. There is absolutely

nothing. You lay one shred of credible evidence on the Table and we will put in

place a judicial inquiry.

Now, I will tell the hon. member something else: If an

inquiry is called, anybody on this side of the House that had any indication or

any improper action of any kind, you will forthwith have the resignation. Now,

if one is called unnecessarily and it is merely because of the screaming of the

hon. member opposite, I will expect her resignation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Talk about tripe and silliness!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Make no wonder you guys would laugh, you are

not allowed to speak to him anyway. At least we are allowed to speak to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess

it depends on the day or the circumstances whether we get inquiries or not.

Yesterday the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, the

Minister of Health, was interviewed on the Fishermens' Broadcast about the crab

plant at Roddickton. He said: The insurance cheque, after the fire which

destroyed the original plant two years ago, was made out to Canada Bay Seafoods

Limited, the Town of Roddickton and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. The

member also said the town council subsequently endorsed the cheque.

I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs: Could he tell the House who endorsed the cheque on behalf of

the council and if, in fact, the cheque was endorsed with the knowledge and

approval of the full Council of Roddickton?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, obviously I don't have the

answer to the question readily available. I will take it under advisement and

report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've been told that the amount of insurance was in the

vicinity of $850,000. I am wondering if the acting minister could inform the

House or find out if any portion of that amount was paid to the Town of

Roddickton?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find

out the answers to the questions being asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the answer to this question will be obvious as well.

I would like to ask the minister to find out for me: Was

there a request to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

investigate the circumstances surrounding the insurance claim and the manner in

which it was endorsed on behalf of the Roddickton Council? Was an investigation

asked for, was there an investigation, and what did the department find out?

Could the minister answer that or at least try and find out for me?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find

out the answers to the questions being asked and report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, as well, the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle

said that the cheque was also made payable to Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador, because it too had a claim on the building or were somehow involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: NLDC.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, NLDC, which is now Enterprise

Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: But the fire took place in April of 1990,

Mr. Speaker. So I want to ask the Minister of Development: How much was owed to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, now Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador, and what portion of the insurance claim was paid to

ENL?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that was a loan made by the

previous government under the old NLDC. Certainly I will undertake to get the

specifics of that loan and provide the House with those specifies within the

next half hour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries said that there was no

provincial government involvement in the Roddickton Fish Plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that yesterday.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, he did say it yesterday. Check

Hansard again. He did say there was no provincial government involvement, that

it was all federal money.

I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries, then: Is he today

saying that all of the money that was put into rebuilding and reconstruction of

the Roddickton Fish Plant was from federal sources or was any of the insurance

money used?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to reply to

the hon. gentleman's question that he asked yesterday during the appropriate

time, after Question Period, but I will do it now.

The building in question is owned by the Town of Roddickton

and leased to the Canada Bay Seafoods Limited. The lease is over a long period

with options on the part of the lessee to purchase the facility. I understand

that the operator has indicated to the town that he intends to exercise that

right and that the purchase of it is now in process. The facility was destroyed

by fire and the shell was rebuilt. The town received $249,500, CEIC funding last

fall, you will recall, as a result of the failed fishery. There was a

considerable make-work program initiated by the federal government and by the

Province. The Province had a $1 million program that we undertook to help top up

some of the funding that was provided by CEIC.

Now yesterday, in reply to the question, I said: To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the Province did not, at least certainly my

department did not, make any funds available. I intended to correct that today

and say that yes, my Department did in fact make a $10,000 contribution to the

material cost. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. We had $1 million last year made

available to try to generate some employment. It was agreed that in cases where

CEIC was going to provide funding for fisheries related programs that my

Department had authority to make funds available up to $10,000 as a contribution

to the material.

That is what we did last year, and that was the provincial

contribution to the rebuilding of the facility. Now whether or not the proceeds

from the fire insurance were used, I have no idea. I would suggest to you that

that is a deal between the council of Roddickton and a private company. I am

sure that maybe if the hon. gentleman directed that question to the town or to

the principals of the company that the answer would be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank

the minister for that. So is the minister telling me that he is not sure if

there was any insurance money that was received as a result of that fire used in

the partial rebuilding of the plant? The four walls and the roof and the floor,

I'm told, that is up there. There is no equipment. Can the minister inform the

House then who was the real beneficiary of the fire in Roddickton?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, again that is a question that

would be better directed to the people who were directly concerned and not - I

mean, the involvement of my Department in this whole thing, was that we issued a

licence to the town that was used by Canada Bay Seafoods to process crab. A fire

took place, the building was destroyed, the building was rebuilt, CEIC funding

was provided to the tune of $249,000. We gave them a grant of $10,000 under our

make-work program. The licence is now being held in abeyance by my Department.

The building is not completed. The plant is not functioning. I have discussed

the matter with the principals of the company. I do not detect any interest at

all on their part, certainly for this year, to reactivate the building. That is

where it stands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: It seems like the Premier was interested in

giving the minister some information. I was interested to hear the minister say

that the licence is being held, and I want to say that I hope the licence is

held in case the people are fortunate enough to attract another operator for the

crab plant, that the licence does not end up in some other part of the Province.

Yesterday as well on the Fishermen's Broadcast the member for

the Strait of Bell Isle made it quite clear that Canada Bay Seafoods - and now

the minister, I think, for all intents and purposes, has verified that they are

not interested in operating the Roddickton plant. I would like to ask a

supplementary of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations: did the

company's refusal to operate the plant had anything to do with the workers up

there forming a union? Which I have been told, by the way. There were threats

made that if a union was formed the plant would not operate again. There were

more serious threats than that made, but that is as far as I am going to go with

it today. Can the minister inform the House if the company indeed did tell

workers that if they formed a union a crab plant would never operate in

Roddickton again? Does the minister know anything about that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. If that kind of a threat was

made in the environment at Roddickton it has not been brought to my attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a final

supplementary. There are a whole lot of questions and lot of gray areas, it

seems to me, as developments over the last week or so, since I started asking

the Minister of Fisheries the questions about this. Several calls from that

area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Forestry can laugh about

that all he likes, but the people in Roddickton are concerned about it. There is

something not right about this. With the fire, I say to the minister, with the

fire, about the fire. There is something not right about the fire. There were

threats made, there was a fire shortly after they were unionized. There are

questions about the insurance cheques. Who endorsed them, and who had the

authority to endorse them, and where the money went. There are questions about

that, I say to the Minister of Forestry.

So I want to ask the final supplementary to the Premier. So,

for the people's satisfaction of the area, particularly, and my own and other

members', would the Premier initiate an investigation into this matter and

enquire into this whole situation in Roddickton? Because from what I have been

told, and I say it very sincerely to members, there is something just out of

whack here. I would like to have it put to rest for the people of Roddickton,

and for myself and for others. So would the Premier undertake a full

investigation into - someone look at what happened to the fire? What happened

with the investigation on the fire? What happened to the amounts of the

insurance cheques? Who are the real beneficiaries of the insurance cheques? What

is going to happen to the people in Roddickton? Do they stand a chance, or will

someone else in some other part of the Province benefit as a result of their

misfortune?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have a little familiarity with it, and

it is a little hazy in the memory because it goes back maybe a year or six

months ago. I have forgotten now. I met with the Town Council of Roddickton

about the issue. I met with representatives, I think the Town Manager and the

Mayor, on I believe at least two occasions, but it was about a year or so ago,

as I recall. I do not remember. I was horrified, in the same way perhaps as the

hon. member is, about the fact that the insurance proceeds were received but the

plant was not being restored, and I could not understand why - how this could

happen. So I discovered where the problem lies.

The problem lies with the terms of the lease that was entered

into by the town, apparently with legal advice at the time. This is in the time

of the administration of the former government. Now I do not know whether there

was any involvement by the Department of Fisheries at that time or not, but the

lease was entered into - five years ago? I do not know. It was long before we

had any responsibility for it, anyway.

The fire occurred whenever it did. I do not remember when the

fire occurred; but there was only a small amount of the money spent, and the

cheque was held up for a long time. As far as I know it may still be held in a

trust account somewhere. I do not know where the matter lies. Anyway, we asked

officials in the Department of Justice to look at it, and they advised us that

there was nothing that could be done. The lease agreement specifically provided

for the entitlements and the rights of the parties and provided, I believe,

specifically for what was to happen to the proceeds of the insurance in the

event of a fire, because the property was leased with an option to purchase. So

the agreement was not a very good agreement. It was a darn poor agreement.

Whoever had responsibility for it I do not know, but it did not do much to

protect the town's interests, or the department's or the government's interests

in it at the time. It really left them exposed.

The result is, there is nothing you could do to enforce the

rebuilding of it, because the lessee had the right to purchase the building for

a sum that was either capable of calculation, or specified - I have forgotten

which - and the lessee was entitled to receive credit for lease payments made

and money spent on capital works to pay the purchase price. In effect the

lessee, under the terms of the lease as it was written, had the right to the

title to it, and you could not enforce the rebuilding of it for the benefit of

the town.

Now my recollection is that the whole thing was frustrated by

the specific terms of the lease, but I will again resurrect that file and lay

the information before the House, Mr. Speaker.

I guess probably the easiest way is to table the lease, and

show you the contents - if I had the permission of the town and the lessee, or

one or other of them at least, to disclose it.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Municipal

Grants Act." (Bill No. 30)

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to pass on this information to the House as a result

of the questions asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition relative to the red

herring and the situation at Long Harbour. This is factual, Mr. Speaker. The

fact is that two fish, two red herring have been caught near Long Harbour. The

federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans are investigating and carrying out an

analysis on those fish and our own Department of Environment and Lands is

co-operating and working with the DFO officials on this matter.

With reference to the clean-up at Long Harbour and the

phosphorus leaking into the sea, or whatever, since the red herring problem of

some years ago the department has taken measures to contain the leakage of

phosphorus into the sea. We, the Department of Environment and Lands has no

reports of leakage of phosphorus into the ocean since the measures to contain it

have been taken.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The President of Treasury Board on a point

of order.

MR. BAKER: We have quite a list of things to get through

in the House and we have decided to forego Private Members' Day today, as it is

government Private Members' Day, and go on with the business of the House which

happens today to be the Estimates Committees and the concurrence debate on the

Estimates Committees.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

It is not unusual for this to happen in the House on a

Private Members' Day when for some reason or other one side or the other decided

to give up its particular resolution, particularly if the government side wanted

to go on with public business and if all members agree to it. What particular

item has the minister called?

MR. BAKER: Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that such a motion, or such a

change in the procedure requires unanimous consent but I do not recall the

President of Treasury Board asking for unanimous consent to change the order of

business.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure that it requires unanimous

consent. It would be better if we had it or we might otherwise get into a

procedural wrangle. Since it was the government's resolution, it was their day

in a way, and since it has been done before the Chair would prefer that we had

unanimous consent because then it could be done rather cleanly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: We have no problem with granting leave, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Standing

Orders require that on Wednesdays at 3:00 o'clock, unless there is unanimous

consent to the contrary, that private members' business takes place. Now,

whether it happens to be a day that an individual government member is expected

to present his private members' resolution, or somebody else, I do not think

that matters. I prefer that Your Honour would make a ruling on that because I

understand that is the rule based on Standing Orders. I have not been asked

whether I will give my unanimous consent or not. No one has bothered to ask me

but I would like Your Honour to rule on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair made it quite clear. The Chair

said if hon. members gave their consent then the Chair would not have to look

into it. The hon. member is quite right, it is Private Members' Day, but I have

said to the hon. member many times in this House that we have done other things

by consent of the House and that is what the Chair was asking. So, is the hon.

member objecting or does he want the Chair to make a ruling? The Chair has in

essence asked for that consent so that we can move on to the government

business.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that

we have a ruling on this point, because I know we have been operating on the

Standing Orders and that when there is a change from that, then unanimous

consent is required, and on previous occasions that consent has been asked by

whichever party wishes to divert from the procedure, whether it is the five

o'clock rule or whether it is Standing Orders of any sort, and I am not at this

point saying whether or not I am giving my unanimous consent but I would like

the Chair to make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is trying to make a point but I am not quite

sure what it is. Number one, Mr. Speaker, it is the Private Members Day for this

side of the House and does not interfere with Private Members Days for the other

side of the House at all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they have had two

days in a row now and they will then have a third one next week presumably so,

Mr. Speaker, it does not interfere with their rights in terms of the procedures

in the House and number two, the hon. member has talked in vague terms about

something about the Standing Orders and he has not quoted anything, Mr. Speaker,

and I really believe he does not know what he is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not wish to engage in the bitter debate that is

occurring between the Government House Leader and the Member for St. John's

East. I will try to rise above all that and raise a different issue altogether.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of whose Private Members' Day it is,

is a red herring, if you will pardon the pun. The Private Members' Day is for

the House of Assembly; it is not for this side or that side so, that really is

not an issue, but, Your Honour is right, by practice and tradition members on

either side of the House have from time to time given their consent to carry on

with government business or whatever the case might be, and I am not sure if the

member is objecting to that because clearly what could simply happen is that the

House will close, it happened one time before if you did not want to proceed

with the Private Members Day and that would be a little bit harsh I think, at

this stage. We have already done that once and that probably was enough

grandstanding.

Maybe I can plead with the Member for St. John's East, since

the Government House Leader was not prepared to talk to him, maybe we could

plead with him to let us get on with the day's business. But I would like to ask

the Speaker at this point though for the future, for clarification. Can the

House, which is supposed to be master of its own rules, can the House for

example, move a motion, either by giving notice the day before or is there

notice required, or could it move a motion before three o'clock under the

Standing Orders and move that you proceed to some other business? Can that be

done? So maybe, Your Honour, might just look into that because I would like to

know the answer to that, so then we would not have to go through this stuff all

the time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess. Unless anyone wants

to make a submission, the Chair will recess for a few minutes. The House not the

Chair.

MR. SIMMS: No, no. I was not looking for the ruling now.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, sorry.

MR. SIMMS: I would suggest Your Honour ask if there is

unanimous consent.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to proceed with government

business?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to hold up the

business of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: - and if hon. members want to laugh and jeer

at that, let them do it and I can carry on and debate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: My point to Your Honour, is simply whether or

not the Standing Orders apply or whether they don't. Now, I am prepared to give

unanimous consent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - I have not given it yet, I said I am

prepared to but I have not done it yet and if hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: - and if hon. members want to shout and yell,

maybe I won't, but I am prepared to give unanimous consent to change the order

of business so that the government can proceed with government business instead

of the Standing Orders requiring Private Members business to go ahead, but I

would like at some point in the future, as the colleague on this side of the

House, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked, for a ruling from Your

Honour on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to do that. I can

say as a preliminary thing that in order to proceed with Private Members' Day we

must have Notice of Motion. So the only Notice of Motion that we have is the

government, is the backbenchers, the one they are giving up right now. So

logically one can conclude since there is no other Notice of Motion given, and

the Government House Leader has asked to proceed with government business, that

would seem to be in order, but the Chair will check it out, research it and

report back. The appropriate order is number 2.

The hon. the Government House Leader, order number 2.

MR. BAKER: Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2 is the Concurrence Motion. We were

debating the Resource Committee yesterday.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the resource

sector in particular while the Premier is here because I was hoping today in

Question Period to ask the Premier some questions about the resource area,

specifically in the field of tourism.

As we look around us in the Province today, if we look at our

resources and how we are or how we have developed them, and we look at the

dividends that they are turning in, it is enough to make one a little bit

uneasy. Our fishery is in extremely bad shape, our paper industry is uncertain,

to say the least.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There seems to be far too much noise at the moment. The hon.

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is speaking but I think he is the only one

who is listening to himself, he and I. So I ask hon. members if we could please

extend to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes the appropriate courtesy.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that our resources are in pretty hard shape. We

look at the fishery, and it is extremely uncertain. The paper mills throughout

the Province are going through, I suppose, a period of concern. No new mines are

being opened up to provide any great employment, and mines are things that once

they are depleted they are nonrenewable. Our water power is stable, I suppose,

but we are using more and more of our power and no great new resources or

sources are being developed there. The one area where we probably have a

tremendous amount of untapped potential is in the field of tourism.

In this Province, unlike most of the rest of the Western

World, and certainly unlike the rest of the world, we have a civilized settled

area, but yet we are not overly developed in the sense of taking up all the

prime territory we have, or the natural resource. There is still a lot for

people to see in an area where it is accessible to be able to see it. I know

there are areas in the world that are untapped or unspoiled, but many of them

are inaccessible and will be for quite some time. We happen to have an

accessible area, even though at the present time it might be very costly to get

here. That is one of our biggest problems in the field of developing our tourist

industry in particular, the cost of getting to the Province. Once people get

here we have more to offer in our small space than anything I have seen in this

country, and in fact I can say anything I have seen anywhere in the world.

One of the major concerns that we have, and hopefully the

Minister of Development will comment on this a little later on, one of the

serious concerns is that if we are going to fully develop our potential, a

tremendous amount of time and effort and money but particularly time and effort

and organizational skills will have to be put into letting others know what we

have, because tourists are people who come looking to see what is there to

offer, and if they do not know that we are here, number one - not to say the

resources and the attractions which we have to offer - then they are not going

to come.

Now we have been attempting over the last number of years to

get the message out, but it is a very slow process. People say: Well you put an

ad in the paper and everybody sees it. I even ask members: How many ads do you

go looking for in papers? If you happen to run across it you might see it, but

very few people go looking for these things.

We have to find ways of promoting what we have to offer

people, not only across the country, but around the world. I do not think we can

do it with a part of a department. I do not think we can do it if tourism is

buried in a large Department of Development, an extremely important department;

a department which requires an awful lot of time and energy to run; and if a

minister - no reflection at all on the present minister or on any past ministers

- but if a minister has to be responsible for development generally in this

Province, he has his hands full, to say the least. But if, as part of that

development, he has to try to accentuate the positive, which is really the

tourism sector, I feel that it sort of gets the back seat, because when we talk

about Hibernias, and our water resources and everything else, they seem to be

much more attractive to the electorate than saying you are going to go out and

talk about our scenery, or our heritage, or whatever. Yet, it is probably in

that scenery we have, in the open spaces and our rugged environment and our wild

animals, and our culture and our heritage, and our entertainers - it is in these

resources that we can attract a tremendous amount of people and bring a lot of

new dollars into this Province.

The amount of money that is coming in now in the field of

tourism, compared to the past, is quite positive to look at. We can look at our

neighbouring Province of PEI and we can see what they have done over the years

to promote their Island. I would suggest to members, and I presume almost

everybody, if not everybody, has visited PEI, that we in Newfoundland have a lot

more to offer tourists than they have in PEI.

We may not be in a position to cater to them, and that is

extremely important, but it is sort of a chicken and egg scenario where people

say: When tourists come we will get ready for them; and the tourists are saying:

When they are ready for us we will come. So somebody has to start bridging the

gap and start the organizing and the promoting and the setting up of the

industry generally.

The main concern I have is that it cannot be done by a

division within a department. I would suggest to the minister that it is perhaps

time that we had a full-fledged Department of Tourism. The Premier himself,

especially in responding to the downturn in the fishery, when he talked in areas

such as Grand Bank and Trepassey and Gaultois, he said to them: We cannot

continue to pursue the fishery. We have to find ways of diversifying; and he

basically committed to doing that. Now he did not do it. He did not even attempt

to do it, but I suggest to him that one of the ways we can diversify the

economy, and the Minister of Tourism has said this himself - he will not

disagree with me on this - one of the ways we can diversify, at least to some

degree in this Province, is by utilizing our resources in relation to developing

our tourism industry, because I do think we have a tremendous amount to offer,

but a lot of effort has to be put into it.

I think it is time that we had in this Province, a Department

of Tourism whose main aim is to zero in on all aspects of promoting our tourism

industry. That does not mean sending the minister on a trip to Germany, which

would be a tremendous market for our adventure tourism in particular. Germany

perhaps is one of the key countries from which we can draw a tremendous amount

of tourism.

When I say about sending the minister on trips, I will never,

or have never, criticized a Minister of Development, responsible for promoting

our Province, for travelling. In fact, ministers in the past, who represented

these departments, travelled extensively, because that is what their job is.

I have had some experience myself in representing the

Province and the country internationally, and when you go as a minister - you

know, we look upon ourselves as: Oh, I am a minister from the small little

Province of Newfoundland and it doesn't matter very much to you. To people in

other countries you are a minister representing a government. In particular, if

you happen to be representing the country, you are looked upon as a key

minister. You get access to people and press and everything else that somebody

from a department, some civil servant, doesn't get. That is why our best

salesperson for tourism in this Province is the minister responsible.

If that same minister has to go over and try to sell Hibernia

or look for investors in Hibernia, has to try to look for investors into our

water resources, has to try to look for new people to take over our mines and

has a dozen other jobs, then the time and attention he can pay to promoting our

tourism industry is slight. It is no good to send off somebody in his

department, as good as they might be, with a little slide show, because the

amount of attention they are going to get is going to be minimal. So,

consequently, as I say, the only way to really move quickly in this area is to

develop a full-fledged Department of Tourism, and hopefully we will see that in

the near future.

In speaking about resources, I would like to draw to the

members' attention the fact that in the immediate area of this capital city we

have an area that has more to offer than any other place in this country or, as

I said before, perhaps in this world. Any member in this House could get in his

car now and within five hours he could drive around the complete Avalon loop. If

he wanted to add another hour or hour and a half he could do what we call the

double loop, go up the Southern Shore, through St. Mary's Bay, out the Cape

Shore, in through Placentia and back to St. John's. I could list for him

numerous attractions, all of which are completely different in their own way,

which would draw the attention of anybody, things right under our noses that

many of us don't even know are there.

Some time ago I visited some officials in Ottawa and I had a

map of that loop and we had listed thirty special attractions. One of the

assistant deputy minister that happened to be at one of the meetings was a

German, and he said: Do you mean to tell me that within a few hours of the

capital city you can fish, you can see moose, you can see caribou, hundreds of

them on the side of the road, you have natural bird sanctuaries, you have

historic sites, you have fossil finds which are world renowned, you have

lighthouses, you can hunt, you can pick berries, you can salmon fish, you can do

all of that in that area? We said: Yes, certainly you can. He said: If people in

Germany were aware of that they would swim across the ocean to see it. That is

why I say the potential is there. There are no fish in the way to interrupt

them, so they would have no trouble swimming across the ocean.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This might be an appropriate place to remind the hon. member

his time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will get back to it later because there is a lot in the

resource sector I want to say. The point is I would emphasize to the minister

that he should push, from his position - I am sure his experience will tell him

it is about time we really started to organize there and go after a full-fledged

Department of Tourism, of which maybe they will make him minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

member for his vote of confidence. He certainly spoke eloquently and correctly

when he said that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Tourism

who occupied that position for three weeks and nearly put it off the rails

altogether - thank God the election intervened and we put a good Minister of

Tourism there to put it back on the tracks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. FUREY: The former member for Port au Port, the

phantom from Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises some good points

concerning tourism. Last year was a difficult year for the industry, as he well

knows. It was a difficult year for the industry right across the country and,

indeed, across the country we saw the numbers on average were down somewhere

around 25 per cent to 30 per cent in the nation as a whole. I think one of the

things that is a cause of that decrease, that trade imbalance in that sector,

was the imposition of the Goods and Services Tax, which, as you know, put a

considerable burden on people's disposable income, an additional 7 per cent.

In some provinces where there is no provincial sales tax, the

impact was less than in others that had a significant retail sales tax such as

our own Province. That Goods and Services Tax essentially did two things. It

took a bite out of people's disposable income, and the American tourists that we

are trying to draw from the south to the northern part of our continent simply

said that they were not prepared to spend 7 per cent extra, or 15 per cent, or

in our own case in Newfoundland, 19 per cent of their disposable income, written

down on taxes immediately. That was one consequence of that tax.

Another equally devastating consequence of that tax was that

Canadians, rather than stay within their own regions and pay the burden of that

additional tax, went across the border. We hear of cross-border shopping to pick

up consumer items. Tourism is a consumer commodity as well. So they chose to go

south to avoid the tax. When you join those two consequences of this tax - less

people coming north, more people going south - the imbalance is very clear.

Some provinces were hit very hard last year. Little Prince

Edward Island, whose primary industry is tourism, was hit extremely hard. Nova

Scotia was hit hard, to a lesser degree. New Brunswick had a significant impact.

Little Newfoundland and Labrador, with a much smaller budget than many of these

other provinces, we were down, but we were not down as significantly as other

provinces were. We were down in the range of 6 per cent to 7.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I see good things for the industry this summer.

I really do, everywhere across the Province. Operators whom I talk to - I talked

to a boat operator just recently who told me that their particular company, the

number of bookings are triple over last year. Some bed-and-breakfast people whom

I have talked to around the Province, their numbers are up. The convention

sector will be up considerably this year and next year - groups coming, like the

Shriner's Club, medical people from across the country - this is good stuff.

The cruise ship industry is up. My friend from Torngat

Mountains talks about the beauty of the Saglek Fiords in the Hebron area. The

cruise ships are moving more and more to the Northern region now, which is why

our Province for a national park, and all of the expenditures that will come

along with that. I know he supports us in that position.

I should say something very important to this Assembly that

not very many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know. Tourism is the fourth

largest industry in this Province. It ranks just behind the fishery, forestry,

mining. It is a service industry. Last year it accounted in our economy for $425

million worth of activity. That is pretty phenomenal when you think about it.

What is even more mind-boggling is that two-thirds of that revenue, two-thirds

of the $425 million, was spent by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians moving around

our own Province. I think that is pretty considerable when you think about it.

Two-thirds of all of the revenue generated in this industry were Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians moving around the Province.

A considerable influx of people, for example, came to

L'Anse-au-Meadows to witness the return of the Vikings. A lot of people are

moving along the Northern Peninsula, particularly in the Strait of Belle Isle

district, for the Grenfell celebrations, and Southern Labrador, and parts of the

North, where people are taking

part in those celebrations.

So our own people moving around is a big factor in the

generation of wealth in this particular sector. Now, my friend for St. John's

East Extern is aware, as the critic for tourism, that we have launched a

campaign to even capitalize more on that. It is called Ours to Discover.' We

don't really think that enough Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand or

are knowledgeable about the great things around us. How many people know, for

example, that in the world, on this planet, there are 247 world heritage sites

so designated by the United Nations through the UNESCO division - 247. Some of

those are the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, for example. The Grand Canyon is

another world heritage site, protected forever by law, by planetary law. Canada

which is a smaller country in the context of the planet, has fourteen of those;

fourteen world heritage sites on the whole planet belong to Canada. Two of those

world heritage sites are right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. People don't

stop to realize the magnificence of that. The L'Anse-au-Meadows site is a world

heritage site protected in international law forever because it is the first

landing point of the Europeans a thousand years ago when the Vikings landed here

at L'Anse-au-Meadows at Vinland in my great friend for the Strait of Belle

Isle's district. And down further in my own district, in St. Barbe, at Gros

Morne National Park at the tablelands that Prince Edward in 1987 so declared on

behalf of the world the tablelands is a world heritage site and that is a direct

consequence of the geological theory known as the tectonic plate theory where,

during the ice age, the earth erupted and the centre of the earth that came

about and the continental drift and the plates that came together and were

pushed apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: That is right. The tectonic plate theory that

shows the minerals of the earth. All of them can be found on that stretch of

mountain known as the tablelands running down on the south side of Gros Morne.

Two world class world heritage sites so designated by the entire planet through

the auspices of the United Nations. There is a third being reviewed right now

and it is in Southern Labrador at Red Bay where the first commercial industrial

venture the basque whalers, procuring oil from the whales and setting up oil and

blubber to be manufactured and sent back to Europe to light the lamps of Europe

through kerosene and through oil, at Red Bay. The basque whalers of Spain came

here in the fifteenth century and set this factory up. It was seasonal

employment. Even then they understood the meaning of seasonal employment. Of

course that is being reviewed now. Can you imagine the magnificence of that if

that becomes a world heritage site? If that is declared by the United Nations

through the auspices of UNESCO a world heritage site there will be a triple

crown of world heritage sites right in Southern Labrador and along the Northern

Peninsula, at L'Anse-au-Meadows, Red Bay Labrador and the tablelands of Grose

Morne. What magnificence! We don't stop to realize and that is what we are

trying to push and promote and the hon. Minister of Education is helping us with

the school's program to promote our own history, our own culture, and our own

sense of what we are all about. My friend for Cape St. Mary's talked about his

own district briefly. I had better be careful saying this as Minister of Tourism

but I will say it anyway, one of my favourite places on earth, my personal

favourite places, is the Cape St. Mary's Bird Sanctuary, and if anybody has been

there they will know what I am talking about. If they have never been there they

really ought to take the time to go out there. You talk about a slice of heaven,

Mr. Speaker. It is probably the closest place to heaven that I will ever get to

on earth, and afterwards. It is absolutely spectacular to stand at that ledge

and to look down the sheer cliff 2000 feet into the ocean into what is

colloquially called the music box because of the noise of the birds. And again

it is coming to nest on that rock face for hundreds and hundreds of years and

the mystery of that - thousands of years. It is absolutely spectacular, Mr.

Speaker. It really is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, the birds didn't ask the Minister of

Tourism to jump. I can vouch for that. At least I don't think they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they ask you to fly?

MR. FUREY: They didn't ask me to fly either. We can joke,

but I tell you, it is one remarkable, beautiful, spectacular place to go. My

friend from St. John's East Extern nods, he has been there and probably knows

what I am talking about.

Myself and the federal minister, under the Historic Resources

and Tourism Agreement, plan to upgrade the road and the walking path to the

cliff and that kind of thing - not too much, because you don't want to spoil the

natural beauty of it, but we want to enhance it a bit. In fact, I put it on the

cover of our Tourism Guide last year. I don't know if you remember that yellow

cover with the birds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FUREY: If I could just conclude, Mr. Speaker. I will

just conclude for a minute.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that two-thirds of all the

revenue - it is worth noting and members should be aware of this - is generated

by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians moving around in our Province, spending in

hotels and gas stations, shops and restaurants, craft stores, bed and

breakfasts, that kind of thing. And it generates a lot of revenue. We are trying

to promote that even more through our school systems, and the launching this

week of Ours to Discover campaign because a lot of us haven't visited a great

many parts of this Province, and we really ought to do that. Two-thirds of all

the revenue generated in tourism comes from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

moving around the Province - my hon. friend from Harbour Main hiking through the

Gros Morne National Park, myself, as the Member for St. Barbe, walking along the

beaches of Holyrood - it is people moving around, spending and doing that kind

of thing.

Let me say something else, too. In terms of infrastructure,

we took a position when we took over government that it was very important to

have proper facilities at the gateways. Now, Port aux Basques - my friend for

LaPoile will vouch - has been given a great facelift and a lot of expenditure of

dollars has gone into that. We have a magnificent chalet at Port aux Basques. We

just will complete this June 15, a brand new million dollar chalet at the other

gateway at Argentia, fully equipped and staffed, and just terrific.

Now, I was hoping to have the dollars for our third gateway

in Labrador West. I am sorry I don't have the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now, let's be clear about this. The commitment

that I made is that this government recognizes the third gateway to be Labrador

West, and at the first fiscally prudent opportunity, we will place money there

to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). The old smoothy.

MR. FUREY: No, we will do that. The hon. member will

still have lots of hair by the time we get that concluded.

We also went and did some deals with municipalities, Mr.

Speaker. We did one with the municipality of St. George's, the Port au Port area

- the phantom of Port au Port was here a minute ago - and Stephenville,

Stephenville Crossing. They all bound themselves together and cost-shared a

beautiful chalet right on the highway between St. George's and Stephenville, and

my friend from Stephenville tells me that last year the number of visitations

was up by 15 per cent. Now, it is a magnificent chalet. They designed it

themselves. We will help them stock it. They will pay the operating cost. It

really, truly is a wonderful piece of architecture. It is wonderful to see. You

should see it.

The other thing we are doing is taking portions of the

Province, getting communities to co-operate and bind themselves into groups,

such as my own area, the Northern Peninsula and that of the Member for the

Strait of Bell Isle - those tourism associations, the Viking Trail Tourism

Association - so that businesses together can harness and use the wealth and

expertise that they learn together through that association to draw tourists

there.

My friend from Stephenville has done considerable work with

the Chamber of Commerce and the tourism group and Community Futures and others

there to form themselves into a new identity for that area called the Festival

Coast. What a terrific, magnificent, wonderful title for the area: the Festival

Coast, because you have all kinds of festivals down there, the Cape St. George

festival, for example, the French festival. So when you bind yourselves together

like that and you can harness government monies and get proper studies done, and

do a disciplined, orderly providing of tourist services, it really can make a

difference.

I will conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the

hon. member, tourism is the wave of the future, the service sector industry. We

have the natural environment and products. It is our job to get out there and

market and draw people here. We are doing a pretty good job on that, I can tell

the House. There is more work to be done, but we are doing a pretty terrific

job. But all of us and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to be

ambassadors for tourism, as well. If you want, Mr. Speaker, I can go on and talk

about some other things, about winter tourism and the kinds of things that are

happening at Marble Mountain, but I will do that as debate proceeds.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to have a few words on our resources and the

problems that we are experiencing in many aspects of our resources. I was

surprised today, during Question Period, when I heard, on several news

broadcasts, and I am sure everyone else in the House did, that over in Placentia

Bay, one of the fishermen caught in his net a couple of red herring. I was

surprised at even the Minister of Fisheries, because we all remember back in the

days of the dilemma in Placentia Bay when the bay was closed because of the red

herring issue. Hopefully, and I am sure that I join with everyone else in the

House today in saying that we are not going to have a repetition of what

happened because that was a grey area for that particular year. With the

downtrend of the fishery as it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind my hon. colleague from

Labrador that it is not a joke. The people in Placentia Bay suffered

tremendously because of that red herring issue, and if you can laugh at it, I

can't, because I know a lot of people over there and have a lot of friends over

there, and even if I didn't - if it were in Labrador, I would feel the same way.

I was surprised that there wasn't more emphasis placed. I

thought today that the Minister of Fisheries would come in with a statement

about an investigation of some sort in Placentia Bay, relating to this red

herring issue.

All we think about of late is doom and gloom. I don't know if

the Minister of Fisheries is aware of it or not, but in our prime industry, our

fishing industry, we had some good news yesterday from St. Mary's, and we had

some good news from over around Long Harbour and those places, where there are

half decent catches of fish. Yesterday in St. Mary's some trap men there had

20,000 pounds, which is very good for this time of year.

When I was told about it last night, I asked about the size

of the fish. I was told they weren't really large, but at this time of the year,

the first of the season, it usually is not. They told me that the fish was

anywhere between sixteen and twenty inches. You can certainly process that with

no problem.

So at least there is a good sign out there. Perhaps our

scientists again, and I emphasize the word 'again', might be wrong in saying

that there is nothing out there to come in, because it looks like now - I also

heard on the Fishermen's Broadcast yesterday, I believe it was, that one of the

scientific endeavours off the shore, about 150 miles to the east of St. John's,

they again found a sizeable amount of fish. That speaks well, and hopefully

things are going to look up for the Province. As we all know, for the Province

resource-wise, to benefit, then the fishery is uppermost in all of our minds.

The fishery has to come through for Newfoundland's economy to gain any amount of

strength.

I was listening also today, and I saw that rather than a plus

in the economy, it is now rated, I think, a minus .03 of a downturn in the

economy. So hopefully, with that bit of news on the fish yesterday, things may

turn around.

I want to speak to the Minister of Tourism. I certainly agree

with him, and agree with my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes, that tourism

is the industry of the future - not to take anything away from our fishery. That

will always be our industry, our main industry; but tourism has become a prime

resource, a prime means of monies going into people's pockets, of people being

enthusiastic about this type of adventure.

I look at my own district. I spoke to the Minister of

Development and Tourism the other day concerning an area in my own district, and

people will say that I certainly love the cape shore, I love up the southern

shore and I have visited the area of which the Minister speaks and I have to

agree with him that it is spectacular to say the least.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have people who come to St. John's on

charters; St. John's is the main centre of commerce in this Province and we have

people who come to St. John's, who get off a charter, who fly into Torbay

Airport and are only here perhaps for an hour or two, and visit our area, the

scenic Marine Drive and other areas in St. John's East Extern, and see, Mr.

Speaker, they are beautiful areas, beautiful spots.

I was down to the beach in Middle Cove the other day and I am

sure that anyone, any Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker, from around this area and

from outside this area, has visited Middle Cove beach, sometime during the year.

Wherever you are going to get a bucket of caplin, it is down to Middle Cove

beach, but, Mr. Speaker, I was down the other day and the sea is eroding the

face of the embankment, so I went to the Minister of Development and Tourism and

asked him if there was anything in Tourism, any monies in Tourism, where perhaps

we could put a fence across it and retain it so it would not erode completely

and I must say, the Minister of Development and Tourism told me to call his

deputy minister, which I did, and I wrote him a letter and it seems that there

will be something done to prevent the erosion of that beautiful spot.

Mr. Speaker, I come from the community of Flatrock, the small

town of Flatrock and we have a grotto there. There are a lot of people who do

not know it. I asked the Member for Eagle River one day if he knew where the

grotto was in Flatrock? He did not know, Mr. Speaker, and that will tell you

what that hon. gentleman knows, nothing. He does not know his way from one part

of St. John's to the other, he gets a taxi. He knows only one thing and that is,

keep shouting the name Labrador, hopefully, his constituents will hear him and

hopefully if no one opposes him he might win the next election, otherwise, he is

out! Now that is as far as his vocabulary goes. Now he wants to take our Outer

Ring Road and put the money down in Labrador, so I mean he is doing fine, he is

doing fine but look, I am really happy that I said that because I can see the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation laughing, and it is a joke.

On a serious note, I am glad the Minister of Development and

Tourism is back. That little grotto in Flatrock last year - they only bring out

the book to be signed in June and it is only out on fine days because we do not

get that many, there were 4,200 people signed that ledger from thirty-five

different countries. There were thirty-five different countries represented in

that book so that will tell you how many people visit from outside of

Newfoundland. But what I said to the minister the other day, when I mentioned

about Middle Cove, that it is because of our closeness to St. John's that we get

a great number of tourists who just have a couple of hours; they do not have the

time to go to Gros Morne because Gros Morne is beautiful. I used to go there

every year when the children were growing up and it is a beautiful spot -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. PARSONS: Gros Morne, a beautiful spot. I used to go

there on holidays year after year and it was a grand spot, but there are a lot

of people who do not get the opportunity to go, especially the people who are

sort of fly-by-nighters, they come in here for a few hours and I think that more

emphasis should be placed in this particular area. We all speak about outlying

areas, it is a great thing in Labrador, it is a great thing out around this bay

and that bay but we have beauty right close to the City of St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

MR. PARSONS: Where is it? Let me say this to you. There

is not a city in North America that has that Quidi Vidi Lake situation, not one.

Not one that has the historic background that Signal Hill has. Nothing to

compare with it. The hon. Minister of Fisheries knows what I speak of. You go

down to Flatrock, Torbay, or Portugal Cove or those places any summer's morning,

and it's the nicest part of Newfoundland - fish -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes. Twillingate, I have been there, a nice

place as well. But what I am saying is we place too much emphasis on the great

big thing. A few dollars spent around in different areas could be much more

advantageous as far as the economy is concerned. Now this is my personal belief.

I think it is a real case and I think that we should look at it. Because there

is a number of communities within Newfoundland that have a great potential as

far as tourism is concerned. I think that is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: I would like to mention - could I have leave

for a moment?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, by leave.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Development mentioned

L'Anse-au-Meadows. I had a good friend, Lord have mercy on him, who was killed

in a plane accident on his way to L'Anse-au-Meadows. Bill Manning, who was mayor

of Torbay. He was the manager of historic sites with the federal department, at

the time.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Ingstad and spoke with him

for quite a while. Had a couple of sessions with him, through Bill, many years

ago. But the L'Anse-au-Meadows bit really hits home, because I did have the

privilege to meet that great man, and he was a great man. A great proponent, by

the way, of Newfoundland.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up

someone else's time, but the minister mentioned Red Bay. Red Bay was the first -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I speak now of the member's

constituency, part of it, Red Bay. It was not liver, it was not cod liver, but

it was whale liver. It was the first refinery I think in this part of the world.

You know the oil from the whale liver was used more than anything else in

construction, in the running of machinery and whatever. Mr. Speaker, why that

died out in Red Bay was because we had a different technology, and now that same

industry uses herring oils and different oils. There are different bearings now,

there is new technology, where bearings do not have to be oiled or whatever.

But yes, Red Bay was, I think, the first in North America, as

far as an oil refinery was concerned. I want to say that I was at a 50th

anniversary the other night for a lady and her husband had an oil refinery in

Pouch Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes. They refined cod liver oil in Pouch

Cove. Certainly I visit Trinity Bay on a weekly basis, and when you go to

Trinity Bay you can certainly see every evidence of the industry that was there

at one time. Certainly in Trinity Bay the whaling industry was a mainstay at one

particular time, and so was the seal industry. Both of which have died for

different reasons. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and I

thank the members of the House for giving me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this being concurrence debates, I

presume in concurrence debates you ask questions. I took some mental notes of

some thoughts that the hon. member expressed. I should tell him that I too met

Dr. Helge Ingstad and his wife Dr. Anne Stine Ingstad. He of course being an

explorer, she being an anthropologist. In fact, she did a lot of the digging at

that site, while much of the glory accrued to the man. As usual, the woman did

all the work.

In fairness to them both, he is a great man, and she is a

wonderful woman. In fact, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, two years ago when I was in Norway, I hosted a dinner for the Ingstads

at the Canadian Embassy. At that time I spoke in front of his colleagues and

friends and publicly acknowledged his great work and her great work and

presented them with a gift on behalf of the Province and thanked them publicly

in their own country and before their own media for the great work and great

discovery that both of them participated so fully in for so many years.

Of course, we can't forget Mr. Decker, the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to interrupt the member for just one minute. I

have been notified by the Table that there are five minutes left in this

particular debate and then we have to put the motion. So the hon. member has

five minutes to finish up the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Sorry, Mr. Speaker! You said I have five

minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, rather that me take up the last

five minutes, did hon. members across the way want to take the five minutes or a

couple of minutes for any particular questions? Even the new hon. member, did he

have a question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: And I would love to answer it.

Mr. Speaker, we can't forget, as well, the hunting and

fishing and the outdoor activities that bring and generate considerable wealth

into our economy through outfitters and things. Particularly Labrador: Labrador

still has some of the rivers and streams of world-class trophy trout, fish and

salmon. My friend from Labrador West will know, because there are a number of

outfitter' businesses in his region. It really is a great draw to the economy,

isn't it, bringing new wealth from the outside? We have Americans in Labrador

mostly, but more and more Europeans are coming in as well, to fish and hunt and

that kind of thing. It is good for the economy. They tell me some of the

outfitters are commanding up to $4,000 and $5,000 a week now for some of these

licences and some of their activity.

As minister I was invited in, when I came back from a visit

to the Labrador stores, to one particular camp. My friend from Labrador West

will have to help me out. It was on Minipi Lake. That would have been, not Mr.

Power but Mr. Cooper.

MR. A. SNOW: Jack Cooper.

MR. FUREY: That is right, Jack Cooper on Minipi Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not from western Labrador.

MR. FUREY: No, he is from the Goose Bay area. I meant my

friend from Labrador West will help me out on the name of the operator. It is

Mr. Jack Cooper. It is extraordinary, with the help from ACOA and other

government agencies and his own investment, the building really is

extraordinary. It is just unbelievable, huge fireplaces, proper modern kitchens,

just really extraordinary to see. Therein is a great opportunity too.

Just to switch gears to the winter season and the fall

season. My friend from Labrador West will know about the 400 dogsled races. I

was there last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, no! I said dogs not coyotes, the dogsled

races there. You know, we can't buy the media attention that that grabbed for

us. NBC was there, as I recall, and CBS television. PBS wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be bigger.

MR. FUREY: Yes, it should be bigger, but it is just

starting to grow now and it is starting to really take off. In fact, I entered a

small race and beat everybody. It was a celebrity race. It was no problem, they

gave me the fastest dogs and off we went. It is really extraordinary.

The grand old City of St. John's, that is attracting more and

more attention too as the oldest city in North America, of course. Many

conventions will be coming through St. John's this year and that can only help

spinout activity in Flatrock and Torbay and Mount Pearl and all these other

areas that encompass -

DR. KITCHEN: It ought to be declared a world heritage

site.

MR. FUREY: My hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance,

believes that St. John's, being the oldest known settlement in North America,

ought to be declared a world heritage site too. I think you may be onto

something there. Now, it was this hon. minister and his colleague here, from St.

John's North, who pressured me against my will to put all kinds of money into a

new tourism agreement with Mr. Crosbie to re-develop the old St. John's, to put

money there for the tattoo at Signal Hill. There is all kinds of money there

anyway, in small amounts but, accumulatively as an aggregate, there is a lot of

money there from the agreement for that.

So there are good things happening in tourism. Winter

tourism: Now, there is a golden opportunity. The White Hills out at Clarenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Now, there is an extremely interesting project

- and Marble Mountain, Mr. Speaker. We are getting more tourists -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FUREY: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the

report of the government's Resource Committee be concurred in?

All those for the motion, please say 'aye', contrary, 'nay',

carried.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, the Concurrence Motion

on the Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: What a member!

MR. RAMSAY: What a way to start!

Mr. Speaker, speaking about the order of business, the

Concurrence Motion for the Social Services Estimates, we, on the Social Services

Committee, dealt with a number of departments of government, the Departments of

Justice, Education, Health, Environment and Lands -

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. RAMSAY: - and the Department of Social Services, no

less. These departments that we were dealing with were all brought before the

Committee. The ministers and their officials, I must say, were very forthright

in providing answers to the Committee members.

We, on the Committee, did provide a very, very reasonable

opportunity for Opposition members attending the meetings to address their

concerns. The government members on the committees also raised some points which

were very relevant to the proceedings. The points raised by the government

members were a little different in nature, as is the case, I guess, often

highlighting some of the positive moves that the government is making in the

various fields under the Social Services subheads.

Also, I might add that the co-operation of all hon. members

in filling in for other members who were unavailable due to prior commitments

and also members of the Opposition were fortunate to have some of their members

drop by and question ministers as members of the House of Assembly and not as

specific Committee members. So we had some good proceedings.

Occasionally, the debate got a bit heated, as is the case. I

noted that the hon. Member from Harbour Grace one evening did get a little bit

upset and berated some of the Opposition members for some of the proceedings,

but he was I think just in doing so. The hon. member was certainly forthright in

his commentary to the Opposition members with regard to their points about - no,

that was another Committee. We have been filling in for others so much that we

get confused as to which Committee we are sitting on at the given time.

Anyway -

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Confucius say'.

MR. RAMSAY: 'Confucius say', yes.

Mr. Speaker, all of the Budget subheads were brought forward

without any amendments. There were certain motions brought forward by Committee

members from the Opposition which were defeated. Notably, the action taken by

the former Minister of Justice to censure the current Minister of Justice at the

proceedings was defeated, and I want that to be noted on the record here in the

House as it was brought up in Question Period. Justice was served, I might add,

for the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

Also, I might point out that I enjoyed chairing these

meetings. They were very fruitful. The delays this year, we managed to get one

specific Budget subhead dealt with without an extension of time. This is

certainly progress insofar as the hon. the Member for Humber East goes, because

normally, she holds up all the Committee proceedings beyond the normal one

meeting. This year she managed to let one of the four go through without holding

it up. So I think it is certainly a measure of progress on the part of the hon

the Member for Humber East. Environment and Lands did proceed - No. Hold on.

Which one was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Education.

MR. RAMSAY: Education was the one. I am sorry. Education

passed without any further discussion and study by the hon. member, and I think

she is finally understanding what the Department of Education is all about.

After those years as minister, this year, 1992, the hon. Member for Humber East

decided that it was certainly the right thing to do to let the minister have his

say, and within one period of consideration by the Social Services Committee,

she allowed that to pass. So progress is being made. I would suspect that within

another three years of the hon. member sitting, if she continues to hold her

seat as the Vice-Chair of the member of the Committee for the Opposition, that

maybe we will see in three years time the Social Services Estimates pass without

further discussion beyond the normal three hours, or single meeting, per

department.

I have nothing further. I will take my seat and allow other

hon. members to have commentary on these Estimates, accounting for the largest

portion of the government's Budget, I think accounting for close to about 70 per

cent in total of the government's expenditures. We are very pleased to have

dealt with this in such an expedient manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on

some of the social policies and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) should, too.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I should. We all should. We should all

have the same amount of responsibility to be able to deliver fair and equal

treatment to the citizens of this Province, and not be discriminatory in their

treatment, and not treat them as callously as this administration does.

I understand that it is necessary to have revenue to cover a

lot of the things that we are talking about in social policy, that there is a

responsibility upon government to have the amount of resources available to be

able to cover the cost of delivery of government services that are covered under

the social policy committees.

What I find strange is that while this government finds it

necessary to cut back in areas of social responsibility, in delivery of services

to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they are cutting back on all of

these things and they say that they just don't have the money. Yet they don't

seem to have to create the atmosphere for the private sector to invest more

money into the economy to create more wealth.

In this government, the only answer they have to increase

revenue is to increase taxation. Of course, we all know, if you have any

understanding of economics whatsoever, that we have undoubtedly reached the

point of diminishing returns with regard to taxation in this Province.

The necessity to have the money is very important. We have to

be able to afford to pay for the services, so it is incumbent upon the

adminstration, the government, to come in with a policy to create more wealth in

this Province, not just through increase in taxes, but to increase the

opportunity for people to invest.

It was interesting to note the Minister of Development

talking earlier. He was speaking about how tourism is one of the great

contributors to the economic wealth of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, you get some people, such as the Minister of

Development, talking about the importance of tourism and how they pay lip

service to the actual development of this service, because the government hasn't

really done that much to improve or enhance the Province, or the facilities of

this Province, to promote more tourism.

Last year when the government laid off 2,500 people in this

Province, those people couldn't afford to take a drive across the Island portion

of the Province. Those people couldn't go skiing at Marble Mountain. The

minister suggested that two-thirds of all the economic gain, or the economic

activity, generated through tourism is by residents of this Province, generated

by the person living in St. John's who used to work at the Janeway and used to

take her vacation and go to visit Gros Morne in the summer, or take her vacation

and go skiing at Marble Mountain in the winter, or come down to Labrador in the

fall of the year and go skiing, Mr. Speaker.

But now, when the nurse got laid off, she couldn't afford to

do that. So the Minister of Development, when he sat around the Cabinet table

last year and talked about how tourism was going to create a tremendous amount

of economic wealth for the Province, he forgot when on the day before, the week

before, he was laying off 2,500 people, that this was going to impact negatively

on the tourist industry in this Province.

Of course, we know it had a negative impact on tourism in

this Province. That lowered the amount of revenue that this Province could get

in order to accept more of its responsibility that it should have to the people

of this Province in need of some of the things that are covered under social

policy, such as improved education.

In Western Labrador, we have seen some of the things

occurring that are going to have a detrimental effect on education there. We are

seeing layoffs of teachers in our area. The first time in the history of

education in Western Labrador, we are seeing teachers being laid off this year.

It is important, in a time of recession, that we do not try to save money by

merely cutting back on the expenses of educating our youth. The development of

this tremendous resource, the resource of our young people, is undoubtedly the

best resource we have in this Province. By cutting back on education in Western

Labrador, we are stifling the development of these individuals, this tremendous

resource, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

We have to approach it that the development of education, the

proper delivery and development of our health care system, have to be, I believe

very strongly, the building blocks of building our economy in this Province.

Because you cannot have anybody working in an industry if they don't have an

education. There is a fear in the country today about free trade. We are opening

up more free trade with Mexico. We shouldn't be afraid of competing with Mexico.

With the type of labour that we could be able to provide to enhance our trading

position, the types of things we are going to be doing with the education system

we have in this country, they shouldn't be on the same block at all, with regard

to being able to compete with us.

Mr. Speaker, while manual labour in Mexico may do well, in

the sense of - that's the wheelbarrow jobs, they are slow, you don't need a lot

of training. But where we can really help is not to cut back on education. What

we have to do is put more money into education so that our employees will be

better educated. I recently heard somebody talking about how, at one time, I

believe it was a short time ago, as much as, say, twenty years ago, a person

would probably only have to be trained once or twice in their lifetime for their

career of work. We are probably going to have to train them to enter the work

force now, and as many as twenty-five times before they finish their journey

through the workforce, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if we are going to cut back on the funds that we are

allocating to education, cut back on this investment in our greatest resource,

the youth, all for the sake of saving a few dollars, it is very shortsighted,

very shortsighted, Mr. Speaker. We have to use the education and our health care

system because, not only must we have these people well educated, we also have

to keep them healthy. We have to keep them healthy so that they can go to work

and work and produce wealth for their employer. They can produce wealth for the

whole Province and for the country so we have to use these things as building

blocks for building the economy of this Province. We cannot just look at them as

being an expense on the expense side, we have to look at it as an investment in

the future.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of that cannot be overlooked, and

I am very disappointed in how this government approaches the health care and the

education sector. I touched just a little at the beginning of my speech or

debate on the social policy issue on the importance of this government having

revenues to pay for the delivery of government services and goods to its

citizens -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, may I just interrupt for one

minute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: I promised to table for my hon. friend at

Question Period today, an answer to a question he has posed to me with respect

to Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, the forerunner of

Enterprise Newfoundland, and his question I believe was, how much government

involvement was there by the Province? Can we agree that the Minister of

Education will be next, incidentally?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FUREY: How much government money was involved in

Canada Bay Seafoods? This loan was approved at the St. John's office, May of

1983, Mr. Speaker, and at that point in time they approved $340,000, that loan

was subsequently paid off in full in November of 1988. There was a second loan,

Mr. Speaker, from NLDC corporation for $100,000 in May of 1984; that loan was

paid May of 1990 and when I say that loan was paid, the bulk, the majority of it

was paid back prior to this problem that they have. There was a shortfall of

$5,000. The insurance company paid that out to the NLDC corporation, but most of

the loan was paid or the bulk of it was paid by the proponent.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, there was also an RDA loan from the

previous government that was approved for this corporation for a forklift, but

that loan was never drawn down, none of it was ever used or exercised and

therefore it lapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult to know where to start in this discussion but

I would like to go back and say over the past two or three years, many people

have asked me questions about why I am doing what I am doing. Why are you in

government and why are you a Liberal and these are the questions - why? Now let

me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why I am Liberal and why I am proud to be part of this

government.

I am Liberal because philosophically Liberals believe in a

number of basic principles and I won't go into all of them. Certainly, Liberals

believe in the rights of the individual, the primacy of the individual.

Secondly, if there is another principle which Liberals believe in, it is

equality of opportunity, especially for those disadvantaged people, who through

no fault of their own have suffered. These are two of the basic principles which

Liberals believe in, and I am proud to be part of a government, that even in

these difficult times is trying to promote the achievement of these goals.

Mr. Speaker, in difficult times, those who suffer most are

often those who are weakest, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - there is a danger -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: -there is a danger, Mr. Speaker, that in

difficult times you cut back on those who have just achieved their rightful

place in society. This government is determined not to let that happen. This

government, in health, in social services, in education is determined that even

though times are difficult, and we are going through, with other provinces and

other countries, one of the most difficult periods in the history of

civilization, even though that is happening, Mr. Speaker, this is government is

committed to providing social policies that promote equality of opportunity,

that promote individual rights and, Mr. Speaker, our Budget reflects these two

principles.

This government in these very difficult times provided

funding for programs that helped the disadvantaged. Now we did not have enough!

The Minister of Development keeps asking: Are we perfect? No, we are not

perfect. We have not done enough. But I can provide you, and to the people of

this Province, with example after example of where in the last three years we

have tried to enhance the position of those in our society whose needs are

greatest. It is not enough. But, Mr. Speaker, let me take education. The

opposition member talked about education. Even this year with the difficult

financial times we have, with the freeze, government increased the total

educational spending by 6 per cent. Even if you eliminated the monies we put in

to offset the school tax we increased spending in education very significantly

in tough times.

Look what happened in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick, and

in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan they did not freeze educational spending, they

cut it. They cut educational spending from last year's gross figures. We, in

this Province, even in these difficult times increased spending. In elementary

and secondary education we increased the amount of money provided by $30

million. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I am proud of this year it is that

we were able to replace the school tax with funding that provided equality in

this Province. We not only replaced the money for school taxes but we levelled

up. When the public find out about this, particularly in rural Newfoundland, we

put $12 million more on top of this for the next school year.

Let us take the school year, the full twelve month period, we

not only provided $34 million to replace the school tax, through income tax and

more progressive tax, and a fairer tax, we added to that $34 million an

additional $12 million so that students in all parts of this Province would

receive from the school tax an amount comparable to St. John's. Do you know that

the former administration let it happen, and we let it happen for two years? I

do not play this blame game really. I do not want to go back and blame the

Opposition for all the ills of society. They let that inequitable, unfair,

inefficient, regressive tax system remain and they did not level up. They did

not provide for rural Newfoundland the kinds of funding that would give our

students in these parts of the Province a reasonable chance at a quality

education.

Do you know there are school districts where the school tax

in 1991 brought in $375 to $400 per student per year? There are other areas of

this Province where the school tax, because they did not have the wealth,

because they did not have the industrial base, because they had a large number

of exemptions, people were not making a great deal of money, were raising about

$100 per student per year. This government could not tolerate that. We believe

in equality of opportunity, even in these difficult times. We levelled up and we

are going to do more. A new grant system is being developed in education and we

are going to do more. You know, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province will

see, maybe a year from now, when I send out this accomplishments report, I have

an accomplishments report here, I will send it out probably shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: A report card.

DR. WARREN: A report card on what we did from 1989 to

1992. Tremendous numbers of new initiatives in education. We have only begun,

Mr. Speaker. Because I can assure you we believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have only begun.

I got a letter from the trustees association congratulating the government. I

should have made it available to the press. They were the ones who said, when

the school tax was threatened: this government will not find the money and

replace that money. We will have to raise money through dinners and through

collections. We not only found the money to replace the school tax but we

levelled up. We added another $12 million for the next school year.

Have you heard that before? The trustees wrote the

government, the trustees wrote the Premier. I should have sent it to the press.

I should have made it available to the Opposition. Congratulating the government

on providing the extra funds in these very difficult times.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want the school tax back

(Inaudible)!

DR. WARREN: I do not think they do. I think they are

going to back off that. No, I do not believe they want it back. The public of

this Province will know what we have done in the next few months, particularly

within a year from now. We will have to tell them all of the facts about what we

have done.

Mr. Speaker, on distance education. Let me just give a few

other examples of what we did this year. We increased our distance education

offerings over and above last year, $150,000. Literacy: We maintained the level

of teachers that we had last year. We maintained the level of substitute

teachers. We maintained the level of student assistants. We maintained it at

last year's level. Student assistants, the hon. member, my friend, I am pleased

he mentioned it.

Do you know we are increasing the funding of student

assistants this year, in this difficult fiscal year, by over $1 million? We have

reclassified student assistants. We have 400 throughout the Province, 410. We

reclassified them and we provided extra funding, this year in these difficult

times, as we excluded from the freeze student assistants, so that we could pay

them a reasonable rate of salary. This government wants to do what is right, and

even in difficult times we continue to fund programs in health. Look what we

have done in health. Maybe the minister might want to get up and tell it. It is

embarrassing to the Opposition what he has been able to do in three years. The

Minister of Social Services, he is not here, I mean, it's just fantastic what we

have done.

Environment. Now environment is something that, as a social

person, I take great interest in. What we have done this year in environment.

It's both a social and a resource issue. We put extra funding into environment.

We have to preserve and enhance our environment. We have to teach our people to

care for the environment - to recycle, reuse, reduce. Are these the three R's?

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Tremendous challenge, and this government wants to

promote environmental education, and preservation and enhancement of the

environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

DR. WARREN: Well, I will have another shot at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

DR. WARREN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: I've got a few other things. Let me list just

five or six things we have done this year. I just want to list a few other

things we have done in this difficult fiscal year in education. Five hundred

thousand dollars to the Smallwood Foundation for the encyclopedia. I am proud of

that, Mr. Speaker. That will be a gem, an historic document in the schools of

our Province and throughout Canada. We put $275,000 into a youth transition

study. We put some extra money into a variety of other programs. One area we did

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) scholarships.

DR. WARREN: - scholarships, bursaries, a little extra for

bursaries; student aid, a little extra, we did not increase the rates, but we

know more people are going to be taking advantage, so we increased it.

One area we did make a substantial - not a substantial - we

made a small reduction in funding for transportation. I must be frank with the

House. I must not only tell the positives. I must tell that we did reduce

spending on school transportation. We are trying to rationalize the whole

transportation system. There is a perception in this Province that we have a

significant wastage in school busing; that there are too many buses travelling

with too few people. In fact, I am told there are communities where you have two

or three school buses going in and out. This government decided that we cannot

tolerate that. Last year we started a program of rationalizing the school bus

system so that we can have money to put into other areas of education. That is

going to continue this year.

One school board last year - the Minister of Finance knows

this, so I am not telling any secrets - last year one school board helped us

save about $200,000 for school busing. We gave them back one hundred thousand.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

DR. WARREN: We gave them back $100,000 for books and

computers, because they helped us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Because they helped us restructure the whole

school bus system and save some money, and we put it back into - the assistant

superintendent told me yesterday, I was at a meeting in Gander, that they put it

into books and libraries. What a tremendous investment for funding that was

saved as a result of rationalizing the school transportation system.

I could go on into the other areas, but maybe the Minister of

Health wants to get up. I must say, we have not done enough. We need to do much

more, but in these estimates this government has remained true to its Liberal

principles of trying to provide a quality of opportunity and trying to promote,

in my area in administering education, the most important resource that we have.

The Member for Menihek mentioned the resource of people. The

Royal Commission Report is entitled 'Our Children, Our Future'. He and I agree

on that. The future of this country depends on the quality of the resources we

have - the human resources and other resources. Our people are our most precious

resource. Our school system and our post-secondary system must be changed and

reformed to better prepare our people to meet the needs of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about post-secondary later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of

Education for warning the people of this Province when he stood up and said: We

have only just begun.

This minister has terrified more teachers in this Province,

and disappointed more teachers in this Province, than any other minister. They

are very disappointed, and I suppose a lot of the disappointment is because they

were expecting so much.

I suppose where they had gone out and campaigned for the

minister and his colleagues to get elected, and they elected quite a few people

who came from the teaching profession, a very honourable profession, they had

campaigned for them and they felt, well they will understand the plight of the

classroom, of the students - not just the teachers, the students; because the

teachers understand the plight of the student. They went out and campaigned, and

voted, and worked hard to get the minister elected. Then he turned his back on

the teachers. By doing so he turned his back on the students, the education

process, and that is what made them disappointed.

I suppose to use the analogy it would be like the child who

had hoped so much for Christmas, had been promised so much for Christmas to only

go down on Christmas morning and find that underneath the tree it was bare.

There was absolutely nothing under the tree except empty boxes. That is what was

underneath the tree that this minister delivered to the people of this Province,

Mr. Speaker, empty boxes underneath the Christmas tree, empty promises after the

election when he was sworn into Cabinet. He forgot all about the classroom as

soon as he entered the Cabinet room, he forgot all about it. He did not

understand. He cannot believe what is gong on now.

The teachers of this Province are starting to speak up, and I

know that a lot of them in my district are concerned. It is the first time in

the history of western Labrador that we have layoffs in the teaching profession.

The place where the highest percentage of people go on to post-secondary

institutions come from Labrador West, the highest percentage of people from this

whole Province who want to have a post-secondary education. We find that this

government has seen fit to make it more difficult in this Budget for these

people to go on to post-secondary institutions, making it more difficult on the

parents in Labrador West to be able to afford to pay for their children, the

future of this Province and this country, Mr. Speaker. They are making it

tremendously more difficult for the parents to pay because of the increased tax

burden that this minister has advocated placing on the people, especially of

Labrador West. A miner is going to have to pay about $350 more a year. That is a

lot of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: He must be making $150,000.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, all the minister has to do is go talk

to the miners. They will show him. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the people of

western Labrador recognize that the government needs money to pay for services

but what they cannot understand is why the government continues to tax the

people more and cut back services. They talk about one of the basic principles

of Liberalism being equality of opportunity and to be able to help those less

fortunate. How can the minister square that when he says that somebody who is

getting social assistance in this Province - he talked about how he was proud of

what they were doing in the social services sector - how can he honestly stand

there and say that $130 a month is enough for a young man to live on for a whole

month to supply food, clothing, and a roof over his head? The minister spends

more than that on lunches in a day.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. A. SNOW: He says, no. He says he does not spend $130

in a day on lunches but I am willing to bet that he spends more that $130 a

month. He does not live on $130 a month yet he expects somebody on social

services to live on $130 a month, and that is tremendously unfair. They have to

have more compassion for those less fortunate. You cannot stay in a Cabinet room

with your plush carpets and your comfortable chairs and completely ignore the

plight of these unemployed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You have to

understand that the plight they are in is not their fault. It is the fault of

this administration in not doing anything to promote more opportunity for people

to go to work. That is the problem. The people in Labrador understand that the

government needs money to deliver services. They understand that. The hon.

Minister of Finance said that is why he increased the taxes in western Labrador.

What they do not find as fair -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) increase taxes everywhere else

except Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, what they do not find fair is

the fact that they cut back services to the people of western Labrador. They do

not think it is fair, they do not think that is Liberalism. They want the

Minister of Finance to take - they understand that it is necessary to have

funds. They also understand that there are ways of creating more economic

activity than just taxes. The Minister of Finance thinks that the only way of

creating more revenue to the government is to drive up the tax -

DR. KITCHEN: How else do you get revenue except through

taxes? (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Ah, yes, you can do it through taxes, but

you can do it by creating more economic activity. By creating more economic

activity, what occurs - the hon. Minister of Finance should have been here when

the Minister of Development was up speaking and when he talked about the value

of the tourism dollar in this Province - I forget the exact figure - but that

two-thirds of this value that is accruing to the Province is created by the

people within the Province. The Minister of Development stated this, that is

whom I am quoting. His colleague in Cabinet. The one that he does not see eye to

eye with, or does not sit cheek to cheek with.

They undoubtedly cannot be working together, because he

suggested that two-thirds of this wealth created in tourism is created by the

people of this Province who travel within the Province. They are considered

tourism dollars. The Minister of Finance does not agree with that. That is why

he was the one who laid off the nurses, the teachers, and the people here in

Confederation Building. He laid off the 2,500 people, I guess. Because he did

not understand the economic value of what they put into the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, they think that just by raising

the level of taxes they get more money. That simplistic, piggybank, personal

chequing account mentality has got this Province into the problem that we are in

today. That is what has created the recession, the R word. Or is it the D word

now? The depression in this Province. Because that is where we are. It is

because of that piggybank, personal chequing account accounting policy and

mentality of this government that they are imposing on the people of this

Province. That is what has done more than the national recession, that

mentality. Done more damage. It is important for this government to realise that

mistake and not do even more damage next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I gave the hon. minister (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Minister of Education, stood there

and said that he was proud of imposing these new taxes, the increased taxes, the

higher school tax on the people of this Province, and he was proud of that. Mr.

Speaker, the teachers and the workers of this Province, the ones who are left

out there working, are going to show the minister that they are not very excited

about his increased taxes and cutback in services. They are going to show him

that they are not going to work for him this time. They are going to work

against him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognise the hon. Minister of

Education I would like to welcome to the galleries today

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I would like to welcome to the public galleries, on behalf of

hon. members, a group of Boy Scouts and Cubs from that great historic community,

the gateway to Trinity, Placentia, St. Mary's and Conception Bays, the community

of Whitbourne in the great district of Bellevue, accompanied by their leader,

Mr. Bishop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yes, the great community of

Whitbourne, and Trinity Bay is a great bay. I know I am pleased to see in the

gallery -

MR. WOODFORD: Was the Speaker a Boy Scout?

DR. WARREN: Yes, I am sure the Speaker was a Boy Scout.

We all pay tribute to the Boy Scouts for the contribution they make to the lives

of our Province and our country, and I want to join you in paying tribute to

them.

Mr. Speaker, I will make a bet with the hon. member. I spend

less on lunches, of government money, than he does. We will check out a certain

week, and if I win, he takes me out to lunch, and if he wins, I will take him

out to lunch. As a minister, I spend less of government money on lunches than he

does.

MR. WOODFORD: If you win, (inaudible).

DR. WARREN: We will get together. Put up or shut up. I

spend less on lunches, of government money, as a minister than the hon. member

does on lunches on government money. I will put up, and we will get together and

do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: No, I don't want to go back to the past

either.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek on a point

of order.

MR. A. SNOW: The only reason I raised the issue of the

amount of money being spent on lunches by the hon. the Minister of Education is

because I have heard - many teachers are telling me that the minister is 'out to

lunch' all the time. That is what I based my statement upon. That was part of

it.

Of course, the other part of it was the unfairness of this

minister, who talks about the social commitment to the people of this Province,

and he agrees with $130 a month for somebody on social services. I do not know

how somebody making $130 or $170,000 a year can justify that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, just a disagreement between two

hon. members.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, he should put up or shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you.

A couple of points that he made, I would like to react to in

a rather modest, moderate way.

DR. KITCHEN: Not too moderate.

DR. WARREN: Not too moderate, the Minister of Finance

says.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon. member wants to bring

back the school tax. We are not going to bring back the school tax!